Sadanand Rana vs Sato Rana

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the opposite parties.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by learned Munsif (Civil Judge Junior Division), Giridih in Original Suit No.44 of 2021.

Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Original Suit No.44 of 2021 was instituted by the plaintiffs/petitioners. He submits that in the said suit the defendants/ respondents were summoned and they appeared before the learned court on 31.08.2021 and time petition was filed for filing written statement and subsequently several adjournments have been taken to file written statement and finally on 16.06.2022 the learned court has been pleased to debar the defendants /respondents from filing the written statement in light of that and considering that 8 months have already been lapsed. He submits that the matter was running for evidence by the plaintiffs/ petitioners. He submits that certain witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and on 18.05.2023 the respondent/ defendants filed their petition praying therein for recall of the order dated 16.06.2022 whereby they have been debarred to file their written statement and submits that the learned trial court by order dated 02.12.2023 has been pleased to allow the petition on the cost of Rs.500/- and only on the ground that due to non-availability of certain documents the written statement has not been filed. He submits that the same is illegal.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that although the documents were not there and in view of that delay of 11 months has occurred and the learned court on the cost of Rs.500/- has been pleased to allow the petition and there is no illegality. He submits that the opposite parties will not take unnecessary adjournments in the suit.

There is no doubt that in Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC has been introduced for early disposal of the case. However, that delay can be condoned in appropriate cases as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and it has been held that Order VIII CPC is directory and not mandatory. The learned court on the cost of Rs.500/- has been pleased to allow the said petition and further considering that undertaking is given by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that unnecessary adjournments will not be taken in the suit and as such, there is no illegality.

Accordingly, C.M.P. No.83 of 2024 is dismissed.